Rich Prick

That’s about the sum of it. I guess Labour, the Greens and NZFirst might be forgiven because they are just pathetic. But there is no excusing the complicit media banging on (and on and on) about nothing of substance as though National is more corrupt than Philip Field.

kowtow

yes, but the problem is perceptions. Throw enough shit and some will stick.The way the TV news presented those cabiet ministers questioned on the “Cabinet club” was well done and they were most definitely shown to be “caught out”.

There is a perception among a lot of New Zealanders that the Nats are the rich boys club and none of this helps that perception.Populist as they are trying to be ,cuzzying up to the bros (tobacco)and queers.(marriage parody).

It is this perception that the cultural marxists in the media exploit .

They did the same thing to Don Brash post his ‘infamous” Orewa speech and set out to destroy him .They succeeded.

Nick R

Alan and Kowtow are right, the attack is starting stick. Tory sleaze is an easy story for the media which means at the very least that the Government is not getting its own messages out. National have to find a better response than “you do it too”, because (a) they are the Government, and (b) they said they were going to have higher standards than the last Labour Government.

It is interesting that Labour has now allowed Hipkins (as well as the usual slime merchant, Trevor Mallard) enter into the fray. Suggests this is actually a strategy rather than another frolic of Trevor’s.

Ross12

These journalists must lead sheltered lives — haven’t they heard of the word lobbyist ?
Lobbyists have been around since the year dot in one form or another. Every city world wide where the relevant country’s parliament sits is full of them. What do they do– they gain access to MP’s or people of political influence in anyway they can. The Unionists have been very good at it.
This is, in effect, is what these fund raisers are a for of ( payment goes to the party in this case not directly to the lobbyist) .In reality how much time do those attending have to speak one-on-one with the MP speaking ? Very little I would have thought so the event is more like the old town hall political meeting.

Tom Jackson

Alan and Kowtow are right, the attack is starting stick. Tory sleaze is an easy story for the media which means at the very least that the Government is not getting its own messages out. National have to find a better response than “you do it too”, because (a) they are the Government, and (b) they said they were going to have higher standards than the last Labour Government.

It’s sticking because there have been two recent proven cases of ministerial corruption, one of which John Key refuses to deal with.

The media are now reporting Collins’ corruption as fact and Rob Salmond caught Key lying to parliament about it, which he will be grilled on next week.

If Key wants to take the moral high ground, then he has to fire Collins.

And that’s the real story here: Key has to fire Collins, but he won’t or can’t. Until Key fires Collins, this will continue and continue and continue.

How many of you think that National’s election chances are worth less than Judith Collins’ career? Apparently John Key does.

hj

Could there be a further sub-text hidden within Ms Chen’s demand that Auckland be afforded special treatment by Central Government? Could she also be referencing the fact that within the city’s fast-growing and multicultural population there is an ethnic group that stands out from all the others? A group whose homeland constitutes New Zealand’s largest single trading partner? A group whose investment in the Auckland (as well as the wider New Zealand) economy is rising dramatically? A group whose cultural and financial networks are more than equal to the challenge of transforming Auckland into an outwardly focussed and essentially Asian city?

Could it be that Ms Chen is telling us that Auckland must be treated differently from the rest of New Zealand because the fastest growing segment of its population hails from China? Is she trying to persuade us that Auckland’s fate, like that of so many other cities in the Asia-Pacific region over the centuries, is to become a Chinese financial enclave and entrepot dominated by local agents of the vast (and globally expanding) Chinese diaspora?

Surely, as a public law specialist, Ms Chen must know that according special recognition to a non-indigenous ethnic group would immediately raise a plethora of fundamental constitutional problems. One has only to think of the enormous constitutional, political and cultural difficulties that have arisen from successive Governments’ attempts to honour the promises made to tangata whenua in the Treaty of Waitangi to get some inkling of the outcry that would accompany any proposal to address Chinese-New Zealanders “differently”.

After all, it was no lesser luminary that the former Commonwealth Secretary-General, onetime National Deputy-Prime Minister, and current Chairman of the New Zealand China Council, Sir Don McKinnon, who warmly greeted “New Zealand’s China Century”:

“China is our largest trading partner, our fastest growing source of tourists, our largest source of overseas students, and our greatest source of net migration … Our prosperity, our social cohesiveness, our sense of who we are as a nation is increasingly dependent on how well we integrate this new Chinese dimension into New Zealand’s economic and cultural life.”

If you want to know what that means, just ask Judith Collins and Maurice Williamson.

Sir Cullen's Sidekick

With support from resident communists Corrin Dann, Paddy Gower, Guyon Espiner and a bunch of Labour supporters masquerading as reporters, a coordinated attack is being carried out on National so that the toxic coalition of Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana-Dotcom government can win in September 2014.

I am afraid, really afraid, that it is starting to work and the Roy Morgan poll is the start. Now wait for the resident evils to spin any small drop in poll numbers in the major opinion polls as National is taking a huge hit and try to spin the result as a victory for opposition.

I think NZ deserves a three year rule by this toxic coalition – get ruined economically beyond repair, inflation going through the roof, jobs disappearing and bright people leaving – then once and for all the debate will be settled. But then, you will not have John Key as PM and our country will be like one of our poor Pacific neighbours living on handouts from Australia.

hj

Nothing to See?

While immigration played a key role in house inflation in the three years after 2001 (Reserve
Bank 2007), it is unknown to what extent on-going immigration continued to drive price rises.
The housing boom has meant good profits for many New Zealand companies supplying
materials and building services, but it implies investors would rather invest in their country’s
homes rather than its businesses (Bollard 2005). The high returns for property has attracted
finance and reduced the capital available for productive investment (Moody, 2006). The
consequence is investment is going in to industries with limited capacity to increase per capita
incomes. For example, real estate and building are domestically bound and do not have the
market potential of export industries. They also have less opportunity to increase productivity
through new processes and products. The irony is, as these sectors grow, they have incurred
skills shortages which in turn has increased demand for skilled immigrants. The Department
of Statistics ‘Long Term Skill Shortage List’ of 28/3/2006 includes carpenter/joiner, plumber,
electricians, fitter and turners, fitter welders; all indicative of a nation building its
construction/property sector.
There is a danger that a sector of the economy is being augmented that is totally reliant on a
small domestic economy. Not only do these industries have limited potential for per-capita
growth but ‘deriving growth via factor inputs such as labour places pressure on infrastructure
such as transport and land supply, and ultimately have a further negative impact on growth
(ARC 2005). Finally, as the sector gets larger, it gains in lobbying/political strength and can
lobby for immigration regardless if it is the best interests of the economy as a whole. This
could be seen in Canada where the development industry has lobbied hard for high sustained
immigration levels (Ley and Tutchener 2001).

hj

The construction industry has grown by 10,000 firms since 2002, a new Government report shows, but still lacks capacity to deal with the massive demand of the Christchurch rebuild and the Auckland housing boom.
The Construction Sector Report was released this afternoon, the fourth of seven reports designed to improve understanding of the economy.
Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said that the construction sector now employed 7 per cent of the New Zealand workforce – around 170,000 people – and generated annual revenues of $30 billion.
He said that the industry was experiencing unprecedented growth, driven by the Christchurch rebuild and demand for housing in Auckland.
The report showed that despite the global financial crisis and an associated downturn in construction, the construction workforce grew by 30 per cent in the last decade.
It also identified challenges faced by the sector – low productivity, the aftermath of the leaky building fiasco, and the vulnerability of the industry to boom and bust cycles.

Kimbo

@ Tom Jackson

The media are now reporting Collins’ corruption as fact and Rob Salmond caught Key lying to parliament about it, which he will be grilled on next week.

Didn’t you say the same thing earlier in the week about the “smoking gun” that Salmond had allegedly uncovered…and other than Mallard getting himself disqualified by TKO for head butting, Tuesday’s question time for all the huffing and puffing was a non-event? (apologies for mangled metaphors).

Unless there is a witness, a document, or a recording of Collins saying “I want to go to Oravida on this trip BECAUSE my husband is a director, and my friend is the owner”, then other than a continuation of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy (apologies for introducing anothe mangled metaphor) it is just more of the same. So it will be an unsuccessful knock-out “lying to Parliament” strategy to try and target Key. He already had a good go with those in lesser weight divisions during Wednesday’s question time!

Now what we HAVE had is an impartial witness come forward – a high-ranking New Zealand public servant – Margaret Malcolm – confirm no Oravida business, much less any of their Chinese customs issues were discussed. Which is indirect corroborating evidence about the Shaghai visit.

Labour and NZ First can keep on running the same rope-a-dope tactics, but until you actually land some indisputable blows…the champion remains the champion.

tvb

These micro scandals are building up a narrative that National is too cozy with its business donors. Of course Peters was very cosy with his donors when racing Minister. Time to rehash that. As for Labour where do we start. They even allow their major funder the Unions a role in closing their Leader. Their leader has secret donors. And other examples. The end game may well be state funding. But that with Nationals support being roughly equal to the Greens and Labour combined then National will get an advantage there too. Be careful what you wish for.

Nostalgia-NZ

Well it seemed obvious that there was going to be a ‘yeah right,’ along with this. “Lui didn’t ask for any favours, in fact he was turned down – that’s why he gave the donations – yeah right.” An open flank there. Also another contradiction raised, Key fronts up about his meeting while Collins remains quiet about hers. While there may have been different aspects to the PM’s meeting compared to the ‘private dinner’ the punters may not see it like that. Key could be walking into one here, be interesting to see how the obvious hurdle of the big donations after the meetings is handled by him. None of this withstanding Williamson.

Julian

BeaB

Good for John Key standing by Judith Collins. Otherwise every time Labour and their cronies say they think a minister is wrong Key should have to jump to their bidding. Just because they say so doesn’t mean it is so and, in fact, all the documentation so far bears out exactly what Judith Collins has said. And just because you don’t like her face or attitude isn’t a ground for sacking.

As for all this ‘Chinese businessman’ stuff, I thought Liu was a Kiwi. So are Labour saying ministers shouldn’t talk to Kiwis, Kiwi businesspeople etc etc? Apart from the fact that we need people of influence and enterprise to be talking to the government, any of us can too if we want to.

Perhaps Labour will run a closed door policy. Will the unions be allowed through the door? Or will the Labour caucus dream up all the ideas and not consult with anyone else at all? There’s a word for government that behaves like that.

Unless there is a witness, a document, or a recording of Collins saying “I want to go to Oravida on this trip BECAUSE my husband is a director, and my friend is the owner”, then other than a continuation of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy (apologies for introducing anothe mangled metaphor) it is just more of the same.

You are setting an arbitrarily high level of proof of corrupt intent. Collin’s dishonour can be inferred from her refusal to answer questions relating to an event in which she has given a dishonest account of the facts.

davidp

Pre-1973, NZ’s largest trading partner was the UK. Overwhelmingly so. Then they joined the EU and cut ties with NZ. It was painful for a while, but in the long term it has allowed us to re-orient from a Europe that is in perpetual recession and with no desire to do anything about it, to an Asia that is growing solidly. Just recently, China overtook Australia as our biggest trading partner… Australian supermarkets discriminate against NZ products, and deny government benefits to NZ residents. While China wants to buy as much of our agricultural produce as we can send them. So we may have dodged a second bullet here… Rather than becoming a second-class state of Australia, we’re continuing to engage with the growing Asian economy.

By accident and (presumably) a bit of strategy, we’re perfectly positioned to benefit from the Asian and Chinese century. It won’t be a perfect relationship, and I’m sure China’s course will have its ups and downs. But there are huge benefits to NZ if we make the relationship work.

National understand this. Which is why they engage with the expat Chinese community, and support companies like Oravida that are breaking in to the huge China market. On the other hand, Labour, the Greens, and NZ First are engaging in their disgusting anti-Chinese racism and dragging anything China-related in to the mud. Is there any doubt that if Collins had met with some Australians and promoted NZ exports to Australia then there would have been no fuss? Is there any doubt that if Woodhouse had discussed immigration matters with a fat German donor then there would have been no fuss? Because both lobbying and export promotion has gone on for decades, and the only reason that the Left (and the media) are having hysterics now is because Chinese people are involved.

beautox

If Labour think they can keep this going until the election they are dreaming. It won’t be long before any mention of Orivida will knock a point off labour’s polling. The public sees politicians moaning about things like this as akin to dogs complaining that all the other dogs have fleas.

It’s sticking because there have been two recent proven cases of ministerial corruption, one of which John Key refuses to deal with.

The media are now reporting Collins’ corruption as fact and Rob Salmond caught Key lying to parliament about it, which he will be grilled on next week.

Two PROVEN cases of ministerial corruption Tom? What Williamson did was stupid, and ill judged. But it was not corrupt. And if media are indeed “now reporting Collins’ corruption as fact”, I hope they have taken legal advice, and that their chequebooks are in good health. You might wish to do likewise 😀

Alleged is the key word. As much as the left cry and cry about this issue, it is still ‘alleged’ by them.

Party support for a key player like Collins can approach levels of religious fanaticism, levels of proof of the party faithful are going to be much higher than the levels of proof of the opposition. How can due process occur without an impartial body? Popular opinion via the elections doesn’t address the real causes of the problem.

OTGO

Labour/Greens etc are going hard on this because they know the longer they can spin it out the less time they will be exposed to the voters as having no serious policy that can handle the scrutiny of the National/Act goverment. Even with their mates in the left wing MSM helping them.

Sir Cullen's Sidekick

Here is my observation fellows:

TVNZ poll, TV3 poll, NZ Herald and Stuff poll – all these will come only after budget. In all these polls National was riding high closer to 48% – 50%. They cannot go any higher obviously. So there will be a drop of 2-3 points. This is what will happen:

Resident Commie 1 – Corrin Dann – National is taking a massive hit due to scandals
Resident Commie 2 – Paddy the Labour Gower – National is finished and Key has paid a heavy price. Budget rejected
Resident Commie 3 – Guyon (E)spinner – Recent polls show a Labour-Green government will be in place this September
Labour candidates aka reporters – Cunliffe on the rise….Teflon John Key suffers….

So get ready for some bad news throughout the month…..Don’t blame that I didn’t warn you guys….

Cunningham

“Party support for a key player like Collins can approach levels of religious fanaticism, levels of proof of the party faithful are going to be much higher than the levels of proof of the opposition.”

Rubbish, regardless of her behaviour (which is my opinion was pretty appalling when she named Bradford) the documents back up what she has said. There is no smoking gun. You are the one who is letting your hatred of her cloud your judgement.

Kimbo

Unless there is a witness, a document, or a recording of Collins saying “I want to go to Oravida on this trip BECAUSE my husband is a director, and my friend is the owner”, then other than a continuation of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy (apologies for introducing anothe mangled metaphor) it is just more of the same.

You are setting an arbitrarily high level of proof of corrupt intent. Collin’s dishonour can be inferred from her refusal to answer questions relating to an event in which she has given a dishonest account of the facts.

Not so.

As Watergate showed, the rules are

1. You can’t JUST “infer” to land the knock-out blow. Instead, you have to answer in clear and indisputable terms the pertinent question. In Watergate it was “What did the President know, and when did he know it?”. In this Collins/Oravida matter it is “When did Collins KNOWINGLY decide to go to Oravida for the clear purpose of endorsing them?”

2. In order to prove the above, you must produce the “smoking gun”. Like Nixon, on tape, telling his men to run interference on an FBI investigation of a burglary by knowingly suggesting the falsehood that it could have been a CIA operation they had stumbled upon. So you neeed something clear and indisputable in Collins’ case as per 1. above, because until you do…

3. She has plausible deniability. You might not LIKE her explanation she was only going to “promote New Zealand business” as she is allowed and expected to do as a Minister of the Crown (e.g., Ministers and the PM open business buildings all the time). More to the point, you may not BELIEVE her when she says she was NOT visiting in her capacity as wife and friend of a director and the owner, respectively. But until such time as you can PROVE she visited with the EXPRESS KNOWLEDGE it was a conflict of interest

…then all the accustions and assurances she lied to Parliament (a sackable offence) are like the challenger, camp-followers and hangers-on trash talking at the media-recorded weigh-in before the fight.

emmess

This perception of corruption idea that the media always talk about is absolute BS
For there to be a perception of corruption, there needs to be at least a somewhat believable allegation. The opposition and media have been creating a perception by constantly going on about it, when they more or less are saying that they have jack shit, or as in Corin Dann’s words ‘no smoking gun’.

Fentex

I was very skeptical at first about this labour attack vector, but I was wrong, it’s starting to stick.

This perception of corruption idea that the media always talk about is absolute BS
For there to be a perception of corruption, there needs to be at least a somewhat believable allegation.

Many of the small niggly accusations flying at National are trivial, inappropriate and inaccurate in and of themselves.

But as long as Collins remains they will accumulate on top of a strong foundation. And that justifies their use as reminders that National in general and Key in particular permit and welcome behaviour correctly perceived as corrupting (by their own admissions).

Collins lied to Parliament and the people of New Zealand so as to avoid accountability. For that she should be dismissed (having chosen not to resign).

I think she clearly lied to obscure her actions regarding Oravidia. Which suggests a guilty conscience. Which strengthens the prima facie case she trades influence for donations to her party.

As long as Collins remains opponents should hurl any and every, no matter how tenuous, accusation of corrupt practices at National to make the point they invite the suspicion by donning her cloak.

The politically observant and National aligned are crying crocodile tears at not being able to put Collins shameful behaviour out of the public’s mind.

Kimbo

Collin’s dishonour can be inferred from her refusal to answer questions relating to an event in which she has given a dishonest account of the facts.

The stuff of witch trials – no wonder you have a problem with the concept our justice system and nation are secular!

Also she did NOT give a dishonest account of facts.

When asked specifically about the visit to the Oravida offices in Shanghai, Collins ommitted to volunteer information about the earlier dinner – which she considered a private affair. And as the discussion there did NOT (contrary to the Inquisitor’s on-going claims) include discussion of Oravida business, particularly their customs problems, as proven by the testimony of impartial witness Margaret Malcolm, then that is where the trail of evidence ends thus far.

You may be instinctively acting like the Witchsmeller Pursuivant, but Collins, thus far, and in line with her profession, has approached the matter as a lawyer – e.g., don’t volunteer information you are not specifically asked, nothing is proven until it is done so beyond reasonable doubt, suspiscions are NOT evidence, inferences are not necessarily circumstantial evidence.

Which, incidentally, is why it has been open-season for the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy on Collins. The WHO, WHAT, and HOW that politicians and lawyers seek to convince are VERY different. But time will tell if she has REALLY taken a hit in the court of public opinion. In the meantime, there is NOTHING that yet proves her a liar in the court that is Parliament.

National need to be smart here. While it may be true that Labour did it too, it’s National in the spotlight since they’re in government.
They need to show they’re listening to the concerns about lobbying and propose legislation to clean up NZ politics from such influence.
Then make a big song and dance about it when Labour vote against it. National will then be the party that tried to clean it up, and Labour as the party who stopped them,

The fact is the Left are racist. They are also two faced. No surprises here. The LEFT have always been both racist and two faced. Time we of the RIGHT called the LEFT out and big time.
Cunliffe et al You are a 2 faced racist hypocrite.
Sadly so is a large number of citizens in this country. They are racist as regards Chinese Indian and other Asian people. And that’s why JK and the Nats are on a hiding over this matter. The dirty deep dark secret is that Kiwis are racist.

Tom Jackson

@Kimbo

Unless there is a witness, a document, or a recording of Collins saying “I want to go to Oravida on this trip BECAUSE my husband is a director, and my friend is the owner”, then other than a continuation of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy (apologies for introducing anothe mangled metaphor) it is just more of the same. So it will be an unsuccessful knock-out “lying to Parliament” strategy to try and target Key. He already had a good go with those in lesser weight divisions during Wednesday’s question time!

Wrong.

This is not a criminal trial, and not a criminal offence. The same standard of evidence does not apply. Collins is accused of not only a conflict of interest, but of allowing a perceived conflict of interest. Even if the former were not the case, we are well past the latter being an accepted fact.

Collins is now a political liability for the National Party (especially after threatening the media). If she were not, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. All Key needs to do to get rid of the issue is to fire her. She can always come back after a decent interval, as Nick Smith did – I think that would be acceptable to most NZers.

But he won’t fire her, which attests to his lack of control over his own caucus or his own poor political judgement.

Key lied to parliament during Wednesday’s question time BTW. Salmond has a good post on that.

Tom Jackson

hj

davidp (3,355 comments) says:
By accident and (presumably) a bit of strategy, we’re perfectly positioned to benefit from the Asian and Chinese century. It won’t be a perfect relationship, and I’m sure China’s course will have its ups and downs. But there are huge benefits to NZ if we make the relationship work.

National understand this. Which is why they engage with the expat Chinese community, and support companies like Oravida that are breaking in to the huge China market. On the other hand, Labour, the Greens, and NZ First are engaging in their disgusting anti-Chinese racism and dragging anything China-related in to the mud.
……

but we aren’t talking agriculture we are talking immigration and in the past NZ benefitted from migrants as a response high incomes in NZ after improving communications, refrigeration and breaking in the hill country post WW2. Since then immigration hasn’t improved incomes (except for Harcourts Shanghai types).

Tom Jackson

You may be instinctively acting like the Witchsmeller Pursuivant, but Collins, thus far, and in line with her profession, has approached the matter as a lawyer – e.g., don’t volunteer information you are not specifically asked, nothing is proven until it is done so beyond reasonable doubt, suspiscions are NOT evidence, inferences are not necessarily circumstantial evidence.

If she had demonstrated candour in the first place, this would have blown over months ago. She made a massive political error in not doing so, and she is paying for it. What works in law doesn’t necessarily work in politics.

Key needs to fire her. That is the bottom line. Nothing else is acceptable.

hj

The fact is the Left are racist.
…….
Being in realestate cures that.
The fact is that people are by nature racist (to a degree) having evolved in small groups where everyone was like them. The hormone ockytocin bonds mother and baby, lovers and groups together while making us suspicious of outsiders.

NZ First Brown got poo-hooded and parodied for suggesting Asians might not “fit in” etc but what is the difference when Asian migrants demand more Asian migration? Might they not be expressing a desire to be amongst fewer who are unlike them?

The next Canada? Rich mainland Chinese push New Zealand migration to 11-year high

One of the biggest obstacles for Chinese investors was how to get money out of the mainland given strict rules on capital outflows, Lum said. “Previously, applicants would contact friends and relatives to help,” he said.

Lum cited a new Bank of China service that allowed citizens to transfer more than the annual limit of 50,000 yuan (HK$62,700). Under one option, clients can transfer between 2 million yuan and 10 million yuan, Lum said. Under another, the amounts are from HK$2.4 million to HK$50 million. The bank does some vetting to ensure the money was legally earned.

Tom Jackson

NZ First Brown got poo-hooded and parodied for suggesting Asians might not “fit in” etc but what is the difference when Asian migrants demand more Asian migration? Might they not be expressing a desire to be amongst fewer who are unlike them?

You can tell that when Salmond goes into rhetorical overkill by utilising OTT phrases such as: –

“This document is utterly damning”..

Really? Not “possibily”, “potentially”, or “probably”, but “UTTERLY”?! Check the adverbs, Tom – they are usually (adverb!) the dead giveaway as to how measured, reasonable, and balanced the polemicist’s perspective and intent are. 🙂

I’d also suggest you are confusing the two Opposition strategies that are in the play here.

When it comes to proving Collins and Key KNOWINGLY LIED to the House (an instantly sackable offence), you most certainly (adverb!) will need the sort of incontrovertible evidential standards found in a court trial. Remember, MPs and especially Ministers ARE presumed to be honourable and honest in all their dealings (again – I don’t make the rules – I just report them 🙂 ), ESPECIALLY (adverb!) with any statements they make in the House UNLESS it can be explicitly and clearly shown otherwise. Which is why Mallard was ejected 2x from Parliament this week for breaching that convention…

The second strategy is death-by-a-thousand-cuts. Which is WHY Mallard knowingly acted in a way that was designed to get himself ejected from Parliament – to raise the profile of the Collins/Oravida affair in the COURT of public opinion.

That is indeed why you are right that Collins is now a political liability for the National Party. And why you are concentrating on her foolish political mistake of attacking the media, rather than clarifying in your response HOW she lied, and HOW her explanations in the House has been shown to be clearly false – not just to partisans, but to a disinterested judge.

I’m not disputing that you can argue her actions in China were suspiscious. But suspiscious does not equate to the GUILT of KNOWINGLY acting a way that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. The bar for proving INTENT is very high. And until such time as mind-reading is acknowledged as a plausible means of discerning intent, all anyone has are opnions. Which proves nothing for getting her immediately sacked as per the cabinet manual.

Or at least Collins is safe for the moment, and until a smoking gun materialises. And why Salmond probably (adverb!) knows he hasn’t produced a smoking gun. Instead, by making the same “they lied to the House and MUST be sacked” claim TWICE in one week that Salmond was seeking to aid the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy.

Reality check: If he WAS right the first time, then Collins would have been gone on Tuesday. And so would Key on Wednesday. Instead, Salmond, like you, and all the others running the death-by-a-thousand cuts strategy are possibly (adverb!) in danger of doing the three things in the court of public opinion that will cause the strategy to run out of steam and:

Tom Jackson

Really? Not “possibily”, “potentially”, or “probably”, but “UTTERLY”?! Check the adverbs, Tom – they are usually (adverb!) the dead giveaway as to how measured, reasonable, and balanced the polemicist’s perspective and intent are.

So Rob Salmond used an adverb and the content of his evidence must be wrong. FFS.

hj

The next Canada? Rich mainland Chinese push New Zealand migration to 11-year high

China is top immigration source for southern nation, with half of all newcomers using investor scheme, some paying up to HK$53m

“The top draw for Chinese families was the ‘beautiful environment, good weather and living standard’, Oh, and the cheap real estate prices.
It seems the New Zealand Govt will not learn that money does not choose the company it keeps. Will they not learn from what happened in Toronto, Vancouver, Sydney, San Francisco etc until the majority of their people are unable to afford a home because of Chinese property speculation? The NZ Government must be turning a blind eye to money laundering and the fact many of the immigrants are corrupt criminals. What a mistake.

Now the Chinese can go and pee all over New Zealand’s backyard……………good.

Well well well, exodus from a country in which ” the degree of support , satisfaction and trust on the Administration surpasses that of US and Japan “, according to the HK Govt.’s “Advisor “. How interesting !

Kimbo

@Tom Jackson

What works in law doesn’t necessarily work in politics.

Indeed.

Politicians have to continually WIN public agreement.

Lawyers just have to show that the other side hasn’t proved my client is a crook. So they get their clients to say as little as possible. unless the evidence against them is particularly damning. Whereas politicians HAVE to talk to get the public on their side.

But IMHO this Oravida matter has been like the theft of a thimble in a nunnery. You say Key should have cut Collins loose to limit the damage? Um, I think the Williamson matter shows he is not afraid to do so. And he will IF someone comes up with a smoking gun. But neither Salmond, nor Robertson, nor Peters have.

In those circumstances, to throw her to the wolves is giving them a scalp. Which doesn’t stop the death-buy-a-thousand-cuts strategy. It just leads to a feeding frenzy due to the blood in the water (Again, apologies for mangled metaphors!)

Kimbo

So Rob Salmond used an adverb and the content of his evidence must be wrong. FFS.

Sorry, I have no patience for your timewasting blether.

Don’t be an arse, Tom.

IF what Salmond said WAS true, it would be all over the front page of every paper.

Get your hand off it, Tom. I’ve given you the courtesy of carefully considering and examing what you say and your alleged proof. If you don’t like being taken seriously, I’m sure everyone here can accordingly (adverb!) take note.

tom hunter

Sorry, I have no patience for your timewasting blether.

As usual no detailed response from Jackson, just the usual hand-waving assertion together with some faddish tweenie word. I was expecting “derp”. It’s right up there with such super intellectual arguments as this response about Hayek:

Tom Jackson

Kimbo

IF what Salmond said WAS true, it would be all over the front page of every paper.

Well, it kind of is.

Uh huh.

Now, a bit of deconstruction of your language would usually (adverb!) quickly uncover the fact that “kind of” are weasel words – especially in the light of Salmond’s CLEAR, and UNEQUIVOCAL language, that leaves NO room for any doubt (which BTW, was my point about the adverbs he was using).

But ok, Tom.

I’ll call your bluff.

WHO, WHERE, and WHAT have the papers been saying in regards to KEY (not Collins) LYING to Parliament.

As a wise philosopher (not Frederick Hayek) once opined, “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run…”

Tom Jackson

As usual no detailed response from Jackson, just the usual hand-waving assertion together with some faddish tweenie word.

Kimbo doesn’t deserve a response, since his argument rested on dismissing evidence because of an adverb a blogger used to describe it. He’s a time waster who posts a wall of text to hide the fact he doesn’t have much of a point.

I was expecting “derp”. It’s right up there with such super intellectual arguments as this response about Hayek:

That would be Nobel Prize winner Frederick Hayek.

There’s a difference between recognising the limited grounds on which Hayek received the Nobel Prize in economics, and buying into his entire political worldview.

In general, if anyone says they believe in Austrian Economics or declares themselves a “Classical Liberal”, you can be pretty sure that they’re either a kook or an idiot.

For example, Hayek claimed in the Road to Serfdom that centralised planning would inevitably lead to tyranny. That must have been news to people who lived in the western democracies when such planning was in vogue. Whatever problems such policies caused, tyranny wasn’t one of them. Hence, Hayek’s thesis is the worst kind of flatulence.

Kimbo

Kimbo doesn’t deserve a response, since his argument rested on dismissing evidence because of an adverb a blogger used to describe it. He’s a time waster who posts a wall of text to hide the fact he doesn’t have much of a point.

Translation: My bluff has been called, all I have in my hands is “Well, it kind of is”, and I’m still arguing that a pair of deuces beats a full house according to the rules where I learned to play cards!

Tom Jackson

Translation: My bluff has been called, all I have in my hands is Well, it kind of is, and I’m still arguing that a pair of deuces beats a full house according to the rules where I learned to play cards!

How about you look at Salmond’s evidence, instead of judging its value on how the media report it, or what adverb he used to describe it?

that Collins would be gone as the proof she had lied was trumpeted with the words

It shows that Judith Collins’ visit to Oravida was an official, Ministerial visit specifically designed by the New Zealand government to improve Oravida’s, and only Oravida’s, business opportunities in China. That is something Judith Collins is strictly forbidden from doing in her Ministerial capacity, because her husband is a director of the company…I anticipate another dreadful, embarrassing performance in Parliament from Collins this week in light of this issue and the others she is facing this week. And I expect her resignation will be announced early next week so it can be immediately drowned out by the Budget.

Whereas when all the documents Salmond cited were used during question time in Parlaiment

…no one landed the killer blow. In fact about the only “dreadful, embarrassing performance” was from Trevor Mallard. Twice.

Instead, Collins ran the gauntlet, and it seems she will be safe on leave out of harm’s way at the beginning of next week.

Kimbo

How about you look at Salmond’s evidence, instead of judging its value on how the media report it, or what adverb he used to describe it?

I have. More to the point, Robertson, Cunliffe, Peters et al. all ran with it, or twists and variations thereof on Tuesday and Wednesday…and got NOWHERE in terms of forcing a resignation. Which is what Salmond said it would do. Death-by-a-thousand-cuts? Yeah, sure, they are all still trying…

Don’t believe me? The fact that they, and the media have moved on to “cabinet Club” and are piling ALL their efforts into that the last two days shows they know there is nothing more of documented substance to hit Collins and Key with over Oravida…yet.

And the fact that “KEY LIED” it is not on the front page of all the papers, and Salmond had to over-egg it with OTT language is CORROBORATION (not proof in and of itself) he was over-reaching.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did she name the businesses that she visited in her report to Cabinet on her June 2012 visit to China, but failed to do so for her visit to Oravida in 2013, which was the subject of a formal invitation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member must be referring to my visit to the Red Pear Company in the Yunnan Province. Primarily because it took about 3 hours to get there, have the visit, and then go back again. It was a very long visit. It was not a 20-minute stop.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why did she name the businesses that she visited in her report to Cabinet on her June 2012 visit to China, but failed to do so for her visit to Oravida in 2013, which was the subject of a formal invitation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member must be referring to my visit to the Red Pear Company in the Yunnan Province. Primarily because it took about 3 hours to get there, have the visit, and then go back again. It was a very long visit. It was not a 20-minute stop.

I’m perplexed that you even think this is a thing. There’s nothing in what you have here, which establishes anything other than what Collins’ said from the very beginning.

Fentex

I disagree. It is not hard to hypothesize a matter of principle when impressions be damned a person must stand against hard winds and hold against bluster for what they find proper and worthy.

This is not the case regarding Collins. All else, all judgements and suspicions aside, ignored momentarily as debatable points, she lied in parliament contemptibly trying to avoid accountability.

For that she must go.

As for the rest people may disagree on whether she ought go – personally I think she should have as I think her disdain for rules designed to encourage and assure us of ministers honest dealings is sufficient to damn her. But with deft politics and a Prime Ministers support she could have weathered that alone.

But I do not accept that a minister who lies in parliament can be forgiven. The power vested in them is only limited by how forcefully they are held to public account and attempting to subvert that accountability by such malfeasance is unacceptable.

Read for yourselves EXACTLY what Minister of CORRUPTION Judith Collins said to the China Executive Leadership Academy about corruption in New Zealand – then file under ‘You Could Not Make This SH*T Up’?

“This is why I am glad to be speaking to you about the New Zealand model and experience for building a clean government. A clean, transparent Government that is free from corruption is one of New Zealand’s biggest assets.

It is the New Zealand government’s view that having a clean and transparent government helps to build trust and support among its people. This allows the Government to act with confidence and purpose in developing policy and making change. This in turn allows the country, its economy, and its people to prosper.

New Zealand is ranked first on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index consistently for seven years in a row. This reflects the integrity of our system and the people who work in it. It also means the people who live, do business and invest in New Zealand know that they can trust our laws to protect their rights and freedoms.

Given this, it isn’t a surprise that New Zealand is also ranked first on the Forbes list of best countries to do business. We offer a stable business climate in which businesses and investors are well-protected.

I believe these number one rankings -‘least corrupt’ and ‘best for business’ – are related. New Zealand’s transparency and lack of corruption are part of the reason we’re considered a great country to do business in.

But creating and maintaining a clean government requires ongoing work and constant vigilance, and even New Zealand cannot afford to be complacent.
In New Zealand we believe clean transparent government is built on three pillars: fighting corruption, having an independent judiciary that can be trusted, and a government that promotes transparency both domestically and internationally.

Corruption

Fighting corruption is not easy, it is a complex offence that is difficult to detect.

Three tools are needed to fight corruption: Prevention, detection, and prosecution.

The New Zealand model provides an excellent example of international best practice in using these tools.

Prevention

The first tool of prevention requires the development of a national all-of-government approach.

New Zealand is currently developing an anti-corruption strategy that will assess our current systems, identify where the gaps and risks are, and create a plan for addressing those gaps and risks.

The strategy will cover the prevention, detection, investigation and remedy of bribery and corruption across both private and public sectors.

New Zealand also has a State Service Code of Conduct that applies to all public sector employees. This ensures public servants are aware of their obligations and boundaries.

The Code is also available to the public, which increases the transparency and accountability of public servants and the public sector in general.

Accountability is also increased through the use of public monitoring systems.
We have two public sector surveys that monitor the integrity of the wider Government.

The first monitoring system is the ‘Kiwis Count’ set of surveys. These take place four times a year and look at the public’s experiences and satisfaction with the public sector. The results of the survey provide insight into the public’s level of satisfaction with government services and can potentially provide an early indication of whether instances of corruption are increasing.

For another perspective, we also survey public servants themselves. Every three years the Integrity and Conduct Survey measures the level of trustworthy behaviour observed by public servants in their organisations. The results of this survey have consistently shown a strengthening culture of integrity in the New Zealand public sector.

The Government in New Zealand also works closely with civil society groups to help prevent corruption. For example, many government departments are currently working with Transparency International New Zealand (an anti-corruption group) to assess New Zealand’s governance frameworks.

The assessment will consider every aspect of New Zealand’s governance structure and every aspect of New Zealand’s integrity and anti-corruption system. It will result in a report and a set of suggested improvements to increase the transparency of both the public and private sectors.

We have found that engagement with civil society has helped us to promote clean government, increase transparency, and reduce corruption.

Detection

The second tool in the fight against corruption is increasing public education and awareness. People need to know what corruption looks like, and what to do if they see it.

Corruption, by nature, is a surreptitious offence; it will always be difficult to detect. As with illness, prevention is the best cure. But where prevention fails, good detection mechanisms are necessary.

New Zealand has a comprehensive whistle-blower regime that applies to both the public and private sectors. If anyone suspects that corruption is occurring, they are able to report this, anonymously, and without fear of punishment.

The regime ensures that if someone reports serious wrongdoing (including corruption), they cannot be fired or mistreated by their employer, they cannot be charged with a criminal offence, they cannot be sued for damages, and they cannot be subjected to any disciplinary action. Importantly, these protections cannot be altered by employment contracts or other agreements.

Another important detection-mechanism is an effective and comprehensive anti-money laundering regime.

You may be interested to know that New Zealand recently overhauled its anti-money laundering regime.

Many forms of corruption will result in illicit gains – for example, if an official accepted a $100,000 cash bribe to make a decision, the result is that he or she is left with $100,000 of illicit cash.

This illicit cash will need to be laundered. Under New Zealand’s new anti-money laundering regime, banks are required to know enough about their customers so they can pick up on anything unusual in their customers’ accounts. This means that if the official deposited the illicit cash into a bank account, the bank would know that a $100,000 deposit was not normal. The bank is required to report suspicious transactions to the Police, who could then investigate the official’s corrupt behaviour.

Prosecution

If the Police do detect corruption, they need to be able to prosecute and punish this behaviour. Prosecution is the third tool used to fight corruption, but it works best with comprehensive prevention and detection measures.

For prosecuting authorities to have the tools they need to tackle corruption, corrupt conduct must first be criminalised. New Zealand’s legislation ensures that a wide range of corrupt conduct can be prosecuted. This includes offences related to public sector corruption (including bribery and corruption of both domestic and foreign public officials) and private sector corruption.

We carefully monitor these provisions to ensure they are modern, effective, and consistent with international best practice.

In June this year the Government announced a number of legislative amendments to strengthen our bribery and corruption offences. These amendments will be contained in the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill, which will be introduced by the end of the year.

New Zealand’s public sector corruption offences are punishable by 7 to 14 years’ imprisonment. Compared to other crimes these are very serious penalties.

In addition to these penalties, New Zealand has an effective criminal proceeds regime. Our legislation allows New Zealand authorities to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of corruption.

A proceeds recovery regime is an important mechanism for taking the profit out of corruption and removing the incentives to commit such offences. ……………..”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

FACT: NZ has not yet ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).

FACT: Judith Collins ‘Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill’ (needed before NZ can ratify the UNCAC) has not yet surfaced in the House, although she promised it would be in 2013.

FACT: NZ does not have an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

FACT: NZ MPs do not have an ENFORCEABLE ‘Code of Conduct’.

FACT: NZ Judges do not have an ENFORCEABLE ‘Code of Conduct’.

FACT: The Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – which NZ continually leads – is based upon the subjective opinions of anonymous business people and is not worth the paper upon which it is written (in my considered opinion as a proven anti-corruption campaigner, and someone who attended their 2010 ‘Anti-Corruption Conference’).

FACT: Transparency International NZ, gets most of its funding from Government Departments, an number of which have a vested interest in maintaining the rort and fraud that NZ is ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ – see for yourselves:

School of Government, VUW
Ministry for Justice
Statistics New Zealand
The Human Rights Commission
Ministry of Social Development
The Treasury
Inland Revenue
Department of Internal Affairs
Corrections
Department of Conservation
Ministry of Transport
Civil Aviation Authority
New Zealand Transport Authority
Maritime New Zealand
Te Puni Kokiri
The State Services Commission
The Ombudsman
Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
The New Zealand Defence Force

NIS Silver

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
The Serious Fraud Office
Crown Law

itstricky

Once again I note the hypocrisy of our media. There were numerous instances when Clarke stood down her ministers because of misconduct. She was labelled by the media as “sure footed” and the matter was promptly dropped.

For National however, no sure footedness here. We have to continue digging.

Labour being a bunch of hypocrites is expected. After all, if they didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all. And it is just a more effective continuation of what David Shearer started with the GCSB etc. They’ve finally found something that while it is just an allegation (Whaleoil reported that two senior opposition members, Goff and Peters from memory, went to China looking for dirt, but couldn’t find any) the media are intentionally reporting this as dirt being found.

But the media so blatantly showing their agenda is harder to forgive. No wonder their market share is falling.